Search Climate Insights Directory

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) provides initial reactions to the third 'non-paper' released on October 29, 2024, by the Chair of the intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) tasked with developing a global plastics treaty. While CIEL views the non-paper as an adequate structure for negotiations at the upcoming INC-5 meeting in Busan, Republic of Korea, it argues that the current text relies too heavily on voluntary language and lacks essential provisions on production limits, chemicals of concern, and finance, which would result in an ineffective treaty.

A joint submission by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and Natural Justice (NJ) providing critical feedback on the Electricity Regulation Amendment Bill [B23 – 2023]. The organizations argue that the Bill fails to sufficiently promote a just transition from fossil fuels, lacks necessary protections against the privatization of the electricity grid, and contains provisions that could undermine transparency and public participation in energy planning and procurement.

This joint submission by IISD, CIEL, and ClientEarth to the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment argues that Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms act as a major obstacle to climate and environmental action. The document details how ISDS is used by investors to challenge environmental regulations, creates a 'regulatory chill' that disincentivizes states from enacting green policies, and often ignores human rights and environmental obligations in favor of investment protections.

Natural Justice provides a critique of Kenya's proposed Climate Change (Amendment) Bill, 2023, which aims to integrate carbon markets into the country's climate response. While acknowledging the potential for carbon markets to mobilize investment, the organization warns of risks regarding environmental integrity and the potential for developed nations to use credits to justify continued fossil fuel use. The statement highlights several deficiencies in the Bill, including the removal of specific representation requirements for marginalized communities and civil society in the National Climate Change Council, a lack of clear procedural guidelines for public participation, and ambiguous role definitions between national and county governments.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) argues that the 'agreement in principle' to modernize the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is insufficient for achieving international climate goals. The organization highlights that the revised treaty continues to protect fossil fuel investments and allows for investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims, potentially hindering governments' ability to implement environmental measures and meet Paris Agreement objectives.

Natural Justice provides a critical analysis of Mozambique's draft Forest Act, arguing that the document functions as an economic instrument for exploitation rather than a tool for environmental protection. The organization highlights significant gaps in the draft, including the lack of distinction between native and planted forests, the absence of sustainable forest management concepts, and insufficient protections for community rights and biodiversity.

A joint statement from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and ClientEarth addressed to the European Commission, arguing that the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is an obstacle to the EU's climate goals and requires fundamental redesign rather than cosmetic modernisation.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), on behalf of itself and clients groundWork and Earthlife Africa, submitted a statement to the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy opposing the draft Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill, 2019. The CER argues that the Bill is a flawed replication of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) that fails to address the climate emergency, violates constitutional rights to administrative justice, and improperly encroaches upon environmental regulatory powers.

This report by Natural Justice analyzes the Land Value (Amendment) Act, 2019, arguing that it fails to adequately protect community land rights and undermines constitutional protections. The analysis highlights critical gaps in valuation methods, compensation timelines, and the removal of Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) requirements for displaced persons.

This document is a written contribution from Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) to the UN's open-ended working group (IGWG) regarding a proposed legally binding treaty to regulate transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises in relation to human rights. FoEI analyzes the 'Zero Draft' presented in 2018, arguing that it is too weak to end corporate impunity and represents a setback compared to previous 'Elements' papers. The document details specific legal gaps in the draft—such as the lack of direct obligations for corporations and insufficient definitions of value chains—and includes testimonies from affected peoples across different continents calling for an international court and the primacy of human rights over investment agreements.

This report by Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) provides a critical analysis of the 'Zero Draft' of a proposed UN legally binding instrument to regulate transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises in relation to human rights. FoEI argues that the draft is too weak, lacks essential principles, and fails to provide effective mechanisms to end corporate impunity. The document includes general comments on the draft's structure, specific contributions from FoEI representatives across different continents, and recommendations for the revised version of the treaty to be presented at the 5th session of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG).

This written submission by Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) analyzes the 'Zero Draft' of a proposed UN legally binding instrument to regulate transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises in regarding human rights. FoEI argues that the Zero Draft is too weak, lacks direct obligations for corporations, and fails to provide effective mechanisms to end corporate impunity, calling for a revised version that prioritizes human rights over commercial interests.

This briefing by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) analyzes the proposed changes to the Brazilian Forest Code (Law 12.651/2012) introduced by the rapporteur of Provisional Measure (MPV) 867/2018. The authors argue that the proposal risks paralyzing environmental regularization programs, increasing legal insecurity, and incentivizing illegal deforestation by shifting the responsibility for regularization from landowners to state agencies and altering the calculation of Legal Reserves.

The Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle Campaign, represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights, groundWork, and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, formally opposes the Department of Environmental Affairs' (DEA) plan to establish an expert panel to provide guidance on managing sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions from existing power plants. The campaign argues that such a panel is unnecessary, would delay compliance with Minimum Emission Standards (MES), and lacks a legislative basis for potentially weakening those standards.

A statement from the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle campaign (comprising the Centre for Environmental Rights, groundWork, and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg) addressed to the South African Minister of Environmental Affairs. The letter seeks clarification and proposes amendments to the National Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Regulations and the National Pollution Prevention Plan Regulations, citing ambiguities that could undermine climate reporting and transparency.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) opposes the European Commission's proposal to establish a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC), arguing that the plan focuses narrowly on institutional adjustments while failing to address the substantive imbalances of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. CIEL contends that the MIC would entrench a regime that prioritizes corporate rights over the sovereign right of states to regulate for the public interest, human rights, and the environment.

This research paper analyzes the investment regulations published on December 30, 2016, by South Africa's Department of Trade and Industry to bring the Protection of Investment Act into force. The author argues that the regulations are overly focused on dispute settlement through mediation, which may be insufficient for high-stakes investment disputes and raises concerns regarding the confidentiality of privileged information.

A letter from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) to Minister-President Paul Magnette of Wallonia expressing support for his opposition to the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA), arguing that the agreement's Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) chapter threatens EU environmental and health regulations.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analyzes how the proposed Regulatory Cooperation chapter of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement could undermine the authority of US states to implement public health and environmental protections. The author argues that the agreement's goals of regulatory convergence and compatibility would effectively create a regulatory ceiling, preventing states from adopting standards more protective than federal minimums, particularly regarding toxic chemicals and pesticides.

This briefing consists of final submissions by Howard Mann, Senior International Law Advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, to the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade. It provides a legal critique of the Investment Chapter of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), arguing that the draft text significantly expands corporate rights and restricts the ability of Canadian federal and provincial governments to regulate in areas such as health and the environment.